UGCC/Ruthenian Catholic Churches

[countertenor]

I thought I read somewhere that the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholic Churches are not distinguished outside of Ukraine and the US and that in other places, such as Canada or the UK they simply all fall under or go by UGCC. Is that true and if so, does that mean someone who is Ruthenian in the US and moves to say Canada becomes Ukrainian at least while in Canada? And what about children say two or three generations later if they were to come back to the US do they then come back under Ruthenian jurisdiction?

I don’t know why I was thinking about that, but I just wondered.

 

[Hesychios]

The whole concept of ‘Ruthenian’ is kind of foggy, it was first applied to Belarussians and Ukrainians of whom most were participants in the Union of Brest. The term later extended to include sub-Carpathians of all sorts who still practiced the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. In other words it applied to everybody as a catch-all term, meaning something like “Russian-like, or Russian of some sort”.

There is no ‘Ruthenian’ home territory, and no ‘Ruthenian’ home church. The sub-Carpathian churches are fragmented along national lines and completely dependent upon the Papacy for their appointments. The church in Belarus is almost gone. The Ukrainian church stands as the single most successful of these.

In the USA, the jurisdiction was split between Galician (Ukrainian) Ruthenians and all the other Ruthenians. We tend to think of Ruthenian as a synonym of ‘Rusyn’ (one of several sub-Carpathian ethnic groups), but as an ecclesiastical term it is much broader and refers to the liturgical practice, not an ethnic type.

Originally in the USA all of the eastern rites (they were Rites at the time) were served by the local Latin diocese. That meant that the people had no alternative to attending a Latin rite Mass. This did not work too well, the Byzantine ritual Catholics in many places tended to erect parish buildings without permission and seek out priests from Europe, from wherever they could find one. Many of these came from L’viv, whose bishop had more sympathy than most.

This raising money and starting parishes was disobedience. The Councils of Baltimore specifically mandated the Roman ritual as practiced in Baltimore as the standard for all dioceses in the USA. There was a bit of a tussle as American Latin Rite bishops attempted to reassert their authority over these renegade congregations and their unapproved immigrant priests.

Naturally, this put a large population into danger of going into schism. The process of schism was already underway when Rome decided to erect a jurisdiction for the Byzantine rite. There was no distinction made on the part of Rome between the Ruthenians and the Ukrainians, they were all included under one bishop at the time. I suppose the hope was to keep it all simple.

Probably, had that arrangement persisted, there would probably only be the UGCC in the USA today. Absent any other information, I would say that Rome has shown the two to be considered interchangeable.

I understand that today most Ukrainian citizens from the Zakarpattia Oblast will attend the UGCC when in the USA, although their own church is not a part of the UGCC. This does not seem to bother anyone. It is also true that the only similar type of parish most sub-Carpathian Ruthenians will find around the world is run by the UGCC.

I tend to think that the UGCC deserves a name change. It was born at Brest in Balarus, is international in scope and represents the Ruthenian liturgical tradition around the world. By identifying with this one ethnic nationality it probably has it’s own mission of bringing the Gospel to the people of the world impeded somewhat.

 

[Aramis]

I thought I read somewhere that the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Catholic Churches are not distinguished outside of Ukraine and the US and that in other places, such as Canada or the UK they simply all fall under or go by UGCC. Is that true and if so, does that mean someone who is Ruthenian in the US and moves to say Canada becomes Ukrainian at least while in Canada? And what about children say two or three generations later if they were to come back to the US do they then come back under Ruthenian jurisdiction?

I don’t know why I was thinking about that, but I just wondered.

The canonical “Ruthenian” Church comprises a total of 6 hierarchs; a Metropolitan and 3 Eparchs in the US, and an Eparch and an Exarch in Europe. The Eparchy came into union separately from the UGCC.

Outside the US, those whose canonical enrollment is Ruthenian are usually entrusted to the local Byzantine hierarch, failing that, to the territorial ordinary of the place (usually Roman). Where (Canada, England, Australia, etc) there are multiple Byzantine hierarchs, the UGCC is the preferred choice.

The Ruthenians in the US are mostly descendants of expatriates from the Subcarpethian Rus. Their being made an eparchy was a matter of protecting them from Latinizations and oppression by the Roman Bishops of the US.

Canonically, Muchachevo is the “home base” of the Ruthenian Church, but the majority of the faithful are now in the US, and have been for decades. The Czechs are also canonically Ruthenian. The Eparchy of Muchachevo and the Exarchate for the Czech Greek Catholics are autonomous from the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh, but still canonically are part of the same Sui Iuris Church.

Likewise, when in the Eparchy of Muchachevo or the Exarchate for the Czechs, Ukrainians, Belarusyns, Melkites, and other byzantines are under the canonical care of the local Ruthenian Bishop…

The overlapping jurisdictions of particular byzantine churches seems to be an english-speaking world phenomenon.

 

[countertenor]

So what happens if a “Ruthenian” man lives in a country such as Canada and feels a call to the priesthood, in the UGCC. Would he actually have to formally switch jurisdictions or would it not matter since he would be under the care of the UGCC in that country?

 

[Patchunky]

So what happens if a “Ruthenian” man lives in a country such as Canada and feels a call to the priesthood, in the UGCC. Would he actually have to formally switch jurisdictions or would it not matter since he would be under the care of the UGCC in that country?

He joins either the UGCC or the Slovak Greek Catholic church depending on which side of the Slovak-Ukrainian border he is from.

 

[Patchunky]

I understand that today most Ukrainian citizens from the Zakarpattia Oblast will attend the UGCC when in the USA, although their own church is not a part of the UGCC. This does not seem to bother anyone. It is also true that the only similar type of parish most sub-Carpathian Ruthenians will find around the world is run by the UGCC

This is done because of the use of Ukrainian as the language of the Divine Liturgy in the vast majority of Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes.

The Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic church in the USA uses English exclusively.

 

[Aramis]

So what happens if a “Ruthenian” man lives in a country such as Canada and feels a call to the priesthood, in the UGCC. Would he actually have to formally switch jurisdictions or would it not matter since he would be under the care of the UGCC in that country?

Since it’s within the same rite, tho’ a different church sui iuris, he just needs to be accepted by the bishop as a candidate for ordination.

He may, and probably should, change his enrollment, but that’s trivial matter.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Lets not forget the Eparchy of Ss. Cyril and Methodius for the Slovaks in Toronto for Canadian Byzantines.

 

[wjp984]

This is done because of the use of Ukrainian as the language of the Divine Liturgy in the vast majority of Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes.

The Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic church in the USA uses English exclusively.

They still sing some songs in Slovanik or in both English and Slovonik. Unfortunately they no longer have the texts for Slovonik so only the old people know what is going on. But, there are very few young people left that go to a Byzantine liturgy anyways so no matter.

 

[Patchunky]

They still sing some songs in Slovanik or in both English and Slovonik. Unfortunately they no longer have the texts for Slovonik so only the old people know what is going on. But, there are very few young people left that go to a Byzantine liturgy anyways so no matter.

There is a new text available from EASTER CHRISTIAN PUBLICATIONS that has the “new translation” of the Divine Liturgy along side of the Old Church Slavonic text just like the old brown books used to have. There are also numerous hymns in the this text as well. It is being sold for “private” devotions but I know they are selling them at Mt. St. Macrina and many parishes are getting them to put in the pews so that people can follow along with the Old Church Slavonic during Divine Liturgy.

 

[Aramis]

They still sing some songs in Slovanik or in both English and Slovonik. Unfortunately they no longer have the texts for Slovonik so only the old people know what is going on. But, there are very few young people left that go to a Byzantine liturgy anyways so no matter.

The Slavonic hasn’t changed, aside from where the filioque was added, it being removed. Only the English has changed. I liked my blue book. If I find it, I may make a dual-language edition for my own use with the new English and old Slavonic.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Parts of the Divine Liturgy are still sung in Slavonic at the parish I sometimes attend.

 

[Emma_Gilsdorf]

I came from the Latin Church 12 years ago, and this discussion explains why I feel right at home in the Ruthenian Church. We are accepting and seem as universal as the Roman Church and not so ethnic as the other eastern churches. Ethnic is good but it can be cicky.